Pinard, J. [Translation]:—This is an appeal in the form of an action pursuant to subsections 172(2) and 175(3) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, brought by the taxpayer Placements Bourget Inc. after

Reed, J. [Orally]: —1 will deal first with an explanation of my reasons for allowing the evidence with respect to Mr. Bremault's tax assessment to be called. While Mr. McMechan argued that such evidence should not be considered because it

MacGuigan, J.:—This is an appeal, by leave, from the decision of the Tariff Board ("the Board”) on July 15, 1986, that STIM-U-DENT interdental stimulators are subject to and not exempt from the sales tax imposed under subsection 27(1) of the

Dickson, C.J.C. (orally): —It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Hubbard.

Taylor, T.C.J.:—This is an appeal heard in Toronto, Ontario on March 21 and 22, 1988, against an income tax assessment for the year 1982. The following agreed statement of facts sets out the dispute:

Brulé, T.C.J.:—The appellant is objecting to an assessment of her 1981 income tax return in which she showed a capital gain, which amount was adjusted lower by Revenue Canada, but which the appellant later said the subject shares of the capital

Brule, T.C.J.: —By notice dated September 3, 1986 the Minister assessed the appellant under subsection 227.1(1) of the Income Tax Act ("Act") for tax and penalty, and interest thereon in the amount of $24,772.02 in respect of